Dark Souls II - What they can do to make it better @ Kotaku

December 24th, 2012, 13:54

"That's ridiculous. Playing a game is nothing to be proud of. We are all losers for wasting our precious time playing games. You need to admit this to yourself. I am a gameplaying loser. On the other hand, go ahead and feel like a king. I don't mind the game giving you that kick. What I mind is that you don't want me to be able to enjoy the game in my own lazy way."

Yeah I can kind of see where your coming from, but you need to refine this a little better. First of all, we are geeks, each and every one of us, not losers. I know many losers who are not geeks and many geeks, including myself, who are not losers.
A wise (and very fat) man once told me the definition of a geek, and its simply
Anyone who gets a thrill out of a game. Apparently the second youre invigorated or pumped up for something your doing in a game, or about a game or whatever, your a geek. And contrary to your statement good sir, that is something that we should all embrace.

BUT, know this. I play games for entertainment, its a hobby, certainly not a shameful one, but I also play them with the idea of my own game in mind. Through games, I found a passion for creation, one of the biggest things to occur in my life.
Now im a business-minded individual, and my dream is to bring my game to the media, to make a videogame for the Xbox (my fav. platform, I imagine we'd go multi-platform too though)
Now thats, as of now, my lifes biggest goal. Its also my longest term goal.
You better believe that, while gaming and geeking my ass off, im still the coolest guy I know. My buddies and I have always found that slick balance between having the geek heart, but being and doing exactly what we've always wanted.

I went to an Alternative school where everyone smoked, did all kinds of drugs all day, and wouldnt shut the hell up about their sleds and bikes, but do you think we were afraid to talk about our game at the same time? Our new name for that race or the newest adventure brewing up, the point is, we were (and still are) the geekiest fuckers in town, but we've always been the coolest bunch at the same time.
No shame in the game, and The geek shall not live weak
To arms!

Originally Posted by azarhal
My personal reaction to playing Dark Souls was that what you need to know about is dodging.

In this case:
- Play GW2
- Learn to dodge
- Profit!

True, it's kinda weird how after The Witcher 2 almost all action-RPG combat systems seem to be moving towards "dodge around like a maniac all the time, blocking is for sissies." Darksiders 2, Guild Wars 2 and to a degree Dark Souls did this. It gets to the point where you are less in danger from the enemies themselves than from dodging off cliffs.

Oh my lord thats so true. The pass of death, through Darkroot Garden, with the 5 foot walkway and demon shrubs? I mean its not a problem until you try and dodge, then ploop.
I love Dark souls but it almost doesnt let you have any fun sometimes, because of how strict the game is ya know? Its like the first time I get comfortable and start thinking This games my bitch, I feel the cold, angry hand of DS smack those foolish feelings out of me. I fear that game lol

"If you say so. I'm just dumb then. It's my opininon that games should be exactly as hard or as easy as you want them to be. And dumb people should be able to play too."

Strongly disagree. Games are experiences. Having wildly divergent difficulties makes for wildly divergent experiences. The game developers should focus on creating one experience that they really want to create. They shouldn't give up a narrow focus and goal in order to appeal to everyone.

I'm not one of those "all games suck now"-type gamers, but I definitely think there is an issue with modern games. They have little focus. Little vision. They stick something in a game for everyone and end up with something that appeals to noone.

Seriously, if you don't like Dark Souls, don't play it. Don't destroy this thing I love in the hopes of making it appeal to more players, when you're really just making it into another thing entirely.

Originally Posted by TheWharfMaster
Yeah I can kind of see where your coming from, but you need to refine this a little better. First of all, we are geeks, each and every one of us, not losers. I know many losers who are not geeks and many geeks, including myself, who are not losers.

Sure. I only used the word "loser" in context of accomplishment in games. I don't consider "winning" in a game an accomplishment.

Originally Posted by TheWharfMaster
Now im a business-minded individual, and my dream is to bring my game to the media, to make a videogame for the Xbox (my fav. platform, I imagine we'd go multi-platform too though)
Now thats, as of now, my lifes biggest goal. Its also my longest term goal.
You better believe that, while gaming and geeking my ass off, im still the coolest guy I know. My buddies and I have always found that slick balance between having the geek heart, but being and doing exactly what we've always wanted.

Fine. More power to you, as they say. I believe that I have some rather cool ideas for a game myself. But I'm older than almost everybody in the industruy and have no track record, so I don't think I'll ever make games for a living. (I was offered a job at Ion Storm when they needed people to finish Daikatana, but getting a Green Card simply was not possible. In hindsight it might have been for the best.) I don't consider myself cool, and I have never been able to do exactly what I want. Just to put things in perspective.

Originally Posted by killias2
Seriously, if you don't like Dark Souls, don't play it. Don't destroy this thing I love in the hopes of making it appeal to more players, when you're really just making it into another thing entirely.

But I do like Dark Souls. Or rather, I do like some aspects of the game.

Again: adding an easy mode would not "destroy" or even alter the game for you or anybody else who wants a challenge. If you are to weak to resist a lower difficulty, that's your problem.

I spent roughly the same ammount of time playing Dark Souls and Kingdoms of Amalur. I quit playing the former in frustration, though I loved the lore and atmosphere of the game. I quit playing the latter out of bordeom, because the lore and atmostphere was bland and uninspired. I don't know how many times I died in Dark Souls. In Kingdoms of Amalur I died exactly once, due to actually falling asleep in front of the monitor. In both cases, the game became too repetitive.

From time to time, I enjoy easy entertainment. I enjoy watching or reading something that takes little to no investment to get into.

However, when I read a challenging book or watch a challenging film, I never think to myself, "Boy, they should make an easier version so that others can get a watered down version of this."

Now, of course, some video games, like some movies/TV shows/books, aren't mean to be challenging. A game like Amalur requires virtually no investment or commitment, and you can still get some joy out of it.. for a time. You get the joy from the exploration, from the visceral visuals, and from the tight/polished interface and gameplay.

However, some games -are- designed with a very specific difficulty in mind. Each scene, if you would, or set piece or encounter is designed to do something in particular. They put a bad guy here and an archer here because they know how gamers will tend to respond. Creating multiple difficulty options will necessarily water this down. The more difficulty options there, the less designers can specifically tailor each section to be what they want, and the more designers end up creating a game that's just meant to appeal in a different way, a la Amalur.

Sure, an easy mode might start out as just a bit different. The 'real' mode may even stay untouched for a release. But how long until 'Normal' becomes Easy, Easy becomes Braindead, and Hard becomes an overly masochist afterthought? Dark Souls III? IV?

When you open up the box of difficulty, you seek a different core audience, and you -necessarily- focus less on what the original audience loved so much. I don't really see how it could be otherwise. If a movie like 'Eraserhead' was 're-touched' to be easier to enjoy, then it would be a different product. The same is true of Souls.

Edit: Let me put my thought another way. Not all games should try to be all things to all people. Games should focus on something narrow, on something that only they can provide. Mario shouldn't be dark and edgy. Final Fantasy shouldn't be a linear action-fest through a series of tunnels. Dark Souls shouldn't be easy.

Originally Posted by killias2
However, when I read a challenging book or watch a challenging film, I never think to myself, "Boy, they should make an easier version so that others can get a watered down version of this."

We are talking about entirely different kinds of challenge here. What you get out of a game, a book or a movie emotionally and intellectually is always to some degree depending on what you are prepared to put in emotionally and intellectually. A challenging movie doesn't require any particular skill, the challenge is emotional or intellectual.

Originally Posted by killias2
A game like Amalur requires virtually no investment or commitment, and you can still get some joy out of it…

What it doesn't require is player skill. You must still invest your time and attention. Dark Souls on the other hand, require too much player skill. And you must still invest your time and attention. I'm not interested in difficulty. If I kill the same 100 enemies 100 times replaying the same section and dying 100 times, or if I kill 10 000 rather samey enemies playing through bland areas of filler content, never dying at all, makes little difference to me. It's too repetitive both ways.

Originally Posted by killias2
The more difficulty options there, the less designers can specifically tailor each section to be what they want, and the more designers end up creating a game that's just meant to appeal in a different way, a la Amalur.

Not necessarily. There could always be an intended difficulty. It's usually "normal" slotted in between "hard" and "easy". But I wouldn't mind "normal" followed by "too easy" and "way too easy". Besides, how easy or hard you find a challenge is completely individual. It's impossible to taylor the individual experience unless you let individuals taylor it themselves.

Originally Posted by killias2
If a movie like 'Eraserhead' was 're-touched' to be easier to enjoy, then it would be a different product. The same is true of Souls.

Again, it's not the same thing. You can still watch the whole movie, regardless of how little you enjoy it.

It still baffles me that people care how other people enjoy games, and very inconsiderate of disabled gamers. How bad is it for that a easy mode is added to allow other people to enjoy the game? Some that could not have enjoyed it otherwise.

For me I almost always mod every game I play, it hurts no one else. I have not gotten around to playing Dark Souls, but if I did I am sure I would mod it too be much easier because I don't like hard games, but Dark Souls looks like it has other things going for it, great atmosphere, cool combat and the challenge might be fun as well just to a lesser extreme.

@Mr. Smiley, there are some great mods for KOA that make it harder. I personally play the game with a mod that greatly reduced exp gain and gold because I hated how fast you leveled, you could easily reach max level and have way too much gold well before you came close to the last areas of the game. And there are other mods that make the game much harder. There is a conveinet cheat engine package that has presents,etc Its awesome. I assume cheat engine would be the same way I would have to mod Dark Souls to make it easier, just have not gotten around to it.

Originally Posted by Kefka
It still baffles me that people care how other people enjoy games, and very inconsiderate of disabled gamers. How bad is it for that a easy mode is added to allow other people to enjoy the game? Some that could not have enjoyed it otherwise.

Yeah you're right. Some people might find Dark Souls to be too difficult, so let's just add an easy mode. What's that? Some people might enjoy a multiplayer mode in Skyrim? Might as well just add it in. Too much role-playing in an RPG? Might as well offer a non-RPG mode, right? Man, this strategy game depends a little too much on thinking ahead. Can't the developers just spend half their development resources creating a non-strategy mode? After all, it's not really fair to people who dislike strategy games.

Why have games designed for specific purposes and tastes at all? We should just make every product for every gamer! God forbid designers have a -narrow- -focused- design for a group of gamers that absolutely adore their work. No no, we can't have that. That's MEAN to everyone else!

Edit: Obviously, I exaggerated above, but my central argument is this: Dark Souls and Demon Souls were games created to be challenging. This is the -central- element to these games. If you don't like difficulty, skip them. Seriously. I know you like the 'atmosphere,' but that's basically just a garnish for the difficulty itself. You're asking the designers to offer a steak dinner without the steak. If you dislike streak, why not just order something else? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I don't mind having to check the internet for various things in a game, but I do have a problem with intense difficulty. At least give us an easy or casual option that can let us play the game without having to worry about dying a million times. Leave a hard and even very hard option for those who want it, but give us an easy mode that is easy to beat.

That really just defeats the whole purpose wouldn't you say? It would just be another EA game.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Hmmm…I make no claim that it is "unfair" — and I support them maintaining their original vision — but at least a couple of the bosses require quick reflexes as far as I can tell.

Which ones exactly? There isn't a single boss that *requires* particular dexterity.
It surely can help, especially if you are actively looking to achieve some quirk goal ("I will do this naked or at SL1") but generally speaking response times are quite slow and it's more about learning the patter than "doing it fast".
Beside, even in the case one would have the mental agility of a 90 years old, there isn't a single boss that a heavy armor, brute force and enough level ups couldn't make a lot easier.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Which ones exactly? There isn't a single boss that *requires* particular dexterity.
…there isn't a single boss that a heavy armor, brute force and enough level ups couldn't make a lot easier.

There's a certain amount of dexterity required to play any real game but it's true there's no "super human" reaction speed required.

The issue will more often be reacting too early than too late. Especially trying to parry those early hollow soldiers with their massive 4 second wind up times.

The other and main issue will be the fear! People's brains shut down when they're afraid and they just stand there like a rabbit in headlights. They die, don't remember what happened and obviously conclude it was impossible because no ideas went through their heads in the state of fear.

You should see how smart my parrot is but when he gets a fright he'll just fly into a mirror. Whatever he was afraid of wasn't anywhere near as dangerous as the fear. Did the mirror kill him or did the fear? Same with dark souls.

Once you get the hang of the controller and pluck up some courage you should be right. No courage then what kind of knight are you anyway?

Oh, and I reckon a 50 int sorcerer with crystal soul spear is my most "omg this game is too easy" roll. I've killed some bosses before they could even get to me. (i've only got 1 spare char slot for mess about runs left. More char slots for dark souls 2 please!)

Originally Posted by killias2
Too much role-playing in an RPG? Might as well offer a non-RPG mode, right?

No risk for this one to happen. Apart from inventing what negative RP playing is, it is hard to withdraw from zero.

Why have games designed for specific purposes and tastes at all? We should just make every product for every gamer! God forbid designers have a -narrow- -focused- design for a group of gamers that absolutely adore their work. No no, we can't have that. That's MEAN to everyone else!

That could be. But after release, games are re designed to fit certain groups' vocal demands. There is very little artistic integrity in the video game industry.

Since, for example, a tutorial was introduced in TW2, a game that was supposed to appeal to old school gamers who are supposed to make out the most of a gameplay by simply figuring it out, it turns into answering to demands from specific groups.

The question is therefore no longer why access to demands by people after release but why not access to demands from certain people after release.

Originally Posted by Kefka
It still baffles me that people care how other people enjoy games…

This!

Originally Posted by Kefka
Mr. Smiley, there are some great mods for KOA that make it harder…

Thanks. But my problem with KOA is that the game content is bland and generic. The visual style and everything feels uninspired. I used it as an example in contrast to Dark Souls, which I find very inspired.

To me, difficulty is a matter of how much time I wish to spend with a game. If the lore and atmosphere are good, I can take a higher difficulty, because the incentive to explore the world is higher. A game as bland as KOA had better be easy.

Originally Posted by killias2
I know you like the 'atmosphere,' but that's basically just a garnish for the difficulty itself.

I don't agree with this at all. Sure, if a game mechanic is good enough, you don't need "atmosphere" or content. The perfect example is Tetris; it's all about the challenge of play, the "world" consists of falling geometrical shapes, and that's it.

While any game can be more ore less driven by either mechanic or content, and Tetris is one extreme, RPGs are mostly content-driven. They are about the game world, about characters, lore and story. The gameplay mechanic is there to support the content.

So, while I get what you mean, that for you, the world and lore are there to support the game mechanic, for me it's the other way around. The game mechanic is there to support the content. If difficulty gets in the way of exploring the content, that's a problem.

Originally Posted by Mr Smiley
I don't agree with this at all. Sure, if a game mechanic is good enough, you don't need "atmosphere" or content. The perfect example is Tetris; it's all about the challenge of play, the "world" consists of falling geometrical shapes, and that's it.

While any game can be more ore less driven by either mechanic or content, and Tetris is one extreme, RPGs are mostly content-driven. They are about the game world, about characters, lore and story. The gameplay mechanic is there to support the content.

So, while I get what you mean, that for you, the world and lore are there to support the game mechanic, for me it's the other way around. The game mechanic is there to support the content. If difficulty gets in the way of exploring the content, that's a problem.

I agree with you 100% for most RPGs. But not Souls. These are not narrative rich games. These are not games with role-playing options. These are not games with a whole lot of lore, though there is some there if you want it. That's simply not what Souls is about.

I mean, do you play Wizardry for the lore? Rogue? There are RPGs with a focus on challenging gameplay, and the Souls games are among them.

"No risk for this one to happen. Apart from inventing what negative RP playing is, it is hard to withdraw from zero."
I was referencing the different modes in Mass Effect 3.

"Since, for example, a tutorial was introduced in TW2, a game that was supposed to appeal to old school gamers who are supposed to make out the most of a gameplay by simply figuring it out, it turns into answering to demands from specific groups.

The question is therefore no longer why access to demands by people after release but why not access to demands from certain people after release. "

1. I have no problems with tutorials or accessibility. If anything, I think it's good to open up accessibility as long as you don't challenge the experience itself. Of course, if a tutorial ruins the experience of learning -certain- things, it can have that impact, but, in my experience, tutorials tend to be pretty minimalist. Just enough to get you started.

2. Not all demands will be met because not all are reasonable for a game. On top of that, I think there are some really bad decisions made to widen appeal.

Overall, to people arguing with me, consider these two points:
1. Do you think the challenging gameplay could be considered the central defining element of the Souls games? Think about all the conversations you've ever read about these games. All the reviews. All the previews. The interviews. The comments. Is there a single element of these games that is discussed more often and more intensively?

2. If your answer to 1. is 'Yes,' should a game developer really be moving resources -away- from the central defining feature of a game in order to appeal to a completely different audience?

If your answer to both is 'Yes,' then we completely disagree, and we should depart in opposite directions from this conversation. If your answer to 1. is 'No,' then I really don't understand where you're coming from on Souls.

Originally Posted by Kefka
It still baffles me that people care how other people enjoy games

Personally, I don't. I care just about how *I* enjoy the game, which is different, so what I don't want to see is the game being ruined for the sake of catering to a wider audience.
This silly idea that a game should be "for everyone" is probably one of the biggest plagues in modern game design.

Originally Posted by Mr Smiley
So, while I get what you mean, that for you, the world and lore are there to support the game mechanic, for me it's the other way around. The game mechanic is there to support the content.

I´d say that in this case such viewpoint only reinforces the notion that an easy mode would very likely be a waste .

I mean, in Dark Souls the difficulty is inherent constituent of the atmosphere, pacing or the sense of discovery and it´s the central pillar of the experience the developers wanted to provide, THE support. You remove it, most of the other aspects will end up on shaky ground.
Also, an easy mode for Dark Souls would pretty much mean removing areas like Sen´s Fortress, Blighttown or Tomb of Giants entirely because players "not interested in difficulty" would not get through these without having to go against their disinterest.

Basically, I see an easy mode as something incompatible with how Dark Souls was designed as a whole.

Originally Posted by Kefka
It still baffles me that people care how other people enjoy games,

A mode for players who are not willing to/interested in levelling up as players, in a game with a strong and organic vision like Dark Souls, would need to go deeper than simply lowering the damage received and raising the damage dished and I´m afraid that making such mode enjoyable would require broad adjustments that would influence the normal mode as well.

If FromSoftware comes up with an easy mode whose existence will not in any form affect the normal mode then I´ll have zero complaints (well, maybe besides being sad seeing a developer likely sacrificing their vision, at least partially, for the sake of inclusiveness), however since I´m quite doubtful it´s possible I´d rather if FromSoftware would try other ways to make the game more inclusive - like making a better tutorial.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Personally, I don't. I care just about how *I* enjoy the game, which is different, so what I don't want to see is the game being ruined for the sake of catering to a wider audience.
This silly idea that a game should be "for everyone" is probably one of the biggest plagues in modern game design.

100% You've managed to express my thoughts more clearly than I've been able to. Especially the last sentence!

Originally Posted by DeepO
I´d say that in this case such viewpoint only reinforces the notion that an easy mode would very likely be a waste .

I mean, in Dark Souls the difficulty is inherent constituent of the atmosphere, pacing or the sense of discovery and it´s the central pillar of the experience the developers wanted to provide, THE support. You remove it, most of the other aspects will end up on shaky ground.
Also, an easy mode for Dark Souls would pretty much mean removing areas like Sen´s Fortress, Blighttown or Tomb of Giants entirely because players "not interested in difficulty" would not get through these without having to go against their disinterest.

Basically, I see an easy mode as something incompatible with how Dark Souls was designed as a whole.

A mode for players who are not willing to/interested in levelling up as players, in a game with a strong and organic vision like Dark Souls, would need to go deeper than simply lowering the damage received and raising the damage dished and I´m afraid that making such mode enjoyable would require broad adjustments that would influence the normal mode as well.

If FromSoftware comes up with an easy mode whose existence will not in any form affect the normal mode then I´ll have zero complaints (well, maybe besides being sad seeing a developer likely sacrificing their vision, at least partially, for the sake of inclusiveness), however since I´m quite doubtful it´s possible I´d rather if FromSoftware would try other ways to make the game more inclusive - like making a better tutorial.

Also very very true. The atmosphere and lore are meant to compliment the difficulty. Both games are actually designed very holistically, which is a rarity in this 'Feature Checklist' obsessed era. This is part of why I love them so much….